WP (Milbank): Bush* Says Attacks Are a Sign of U.S. Progress

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank and Thomas E. Ricks

Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page A01

President Bush yesterday put the best face on a new surge of violence in Iraq as his top defense aides huddled to discuss additional ways of thwarting the anti-American rebellion there before it becomes more widespread.

The president, speaking after attacks on police stations and a Red Cross facility in Iraq killed at least 35 people, said such attacks should be seen as a sign of progress because they show the desperation of those who oppose the U.S.-led occupation.

(snip)

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meeting with Bremer, and senior military officials including Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, brainstormed about how to stop the attacks on the very institutions that are needed to advance the U.S. occupation force.

The U.S. strategy is to turn over security missions to Iraqi soldiers and police forces as quickly as possible. "We're all doing a lot of thinking about it," said one official involved in the discussions. But, he said, no clear answers have emerged yet. In a sign of the matter's urgency, Rumsfeld scheduled another meeting for today with Abizaid, Myers and Bremer.

The deliberations are taking on increased urgency because U.S. intelligence and military officials are saying U.S. forces in Iraq have a limited time to break the resistance before the general population joins it.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23470-2003Oct27.html

[alcuno]

1. "Attacks as a sign of progress"

So the attacks on September 11 were a sign of what?

[Voltaire99]

14. A sign that Bush was elected by Jesus?

God elects US presidents in strange and mysterious ways!

[diplomats]

2. More reason why Bush avoids the press

every time he opens his mouth, something utterly ridiculous comes out. Coordinated attacks a sign of progress? Doesn't anybody in the WH realize how stupid that sounds?

[stickdog]

3. In a related story, Bush proclaimed that historic job losses were a sign

that his massive tax breaks for the rich were stoking a huge economic recovery.

[Brucey]

4. These guys can spin anything, and the scary thing is

a lot of Americans will buy it. Apparently, from Bush* reasoning, the more progress we make, the more attacks there will be. I say we should regress then and try not to make so much progress. In fact, let's get into the wayback machine and go back to before the 2000 election and make sure the guy with the most votes wins this time. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any more attacks.

[Simeon Salus]

5. Doggone that filter.

If those partisans at the Post would just focus on the 85 or so American Colonels in Iraq who DIDN'T get killed in a rocket attack.

If only that bulldog Milbanks would focus on the "progress" we're making returning American men and women home on stretchers and under flags (oops! can't do that either).

If only Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz could reassure Tom Ricks about all that progress about all those Iraqi policemen we've put on the street.

All those open schools.

Rape Rooms. Torture chambers. Gassed his own people.

Darn that filter.

[Barrett808]

6. This story paints a picture of complete disarray

Another senior intelligence official said the United States has not devoted enough attention to understanding the anti-American groups in Iraq because intelligence resources have been devoted to locating weapons of mass destruction. As a result, the intelligence community and the military have little precise information about the resistance. "I am not happy with the kind of information we are getting," the official said. ...

...a senior U.S. military official involved in Iraq strategy said yesterday that the Pentagon expects to pare its presence in Iraq significantly when major troop rotations come in February. "The feeling is, get it done while we have the assets available," the official said. ...

Expressing a sentiment held by many, Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former head of U.S. Central Command, said, "Everyone knows you need more troops over there." ...

"They strike with impunity -- and there seems to be little we can do to prevent them," said Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst of Iraqi affairs who teaches at the National Defense University. ...

"The strategy of trying to rush in newly trained Iraqi military and police isn't necessarily an adequate and sufficient response," said Robert Gelbard, a retired U.S. diplomat.

and finally, most dishonestly:

Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute said that by attacking "soft targets" such as the Red Cross and the Iraqi police, the foes are demonstrating that "they don't have the strength" to inflict major losses on U.S. troops.

This is absolutely untrue. The police stations are not "soft targets" -- or they shouldn't be. And the escalating trend of US troop deaths puts the lie to the claim that the insurgency doesn't have the strength to inflict losses on US troops.

How long will Americans tolerate this kind of chaos and ass-covering duplicity in the White House?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. "Progress"? That's what I think every time I hit my thumb with a hammer.

[are_we_united_yet]

8. The only real sign of US progress

will be the pink slips handed to the Bush Administration

[Dr Fate]

9. This is sort of like "Mission Accomplished", I guess...

Will the voters EVER get tired of the Bush/media SPIN???

[Tom Kitten]

10. Do we even know who the enemy is?

I mean do we know what they're doing, who we're fighting anymore? Why are we circling the wagons there and why is this a sign of the enemy's (whoever they are) desperation?

[Cocoa]

11. the media used to ignore stupid statements like this

Bush is in big trouble if newspapers stop giving him a pass for his total inadequacy.

[Melsky]

12. Bizzarre

I just saw another headline for the same story

Bush: Success in Iraq Provoking Attacks

When I saw it, I thought for a moment that bush was claiming success because he provoked attacks "bring it on"

[pinniped]

13. That's the guy alright.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/14/EDMEYER.DTL

Chronicle Political Cartoon by Tom Meyer

[radfringe]

15. so which is it?

a sign of progress or a sign of desperation?

he cited both of these "signs" yesterday...

seems to me that the Iraqi/terrorist oppositions forces are the ones making progress and the whistleass is deperate

Meanwhile -has any noticed a slight increase in stories that question Rummy's ability to serve the rPresident?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031027105109990001
Is Rumsfeld Losing His Mojo?

By MICHAEL DUFFY and DOUGLAS WALLER

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was having one of his irregular chats with Senators last Wednesday, speaking in the secret, soundproof fourth-floor Capitol chamber used for highly classified conversations, when someone interjected the question that was on everyone's mind. "What troop levels do we expect to have in Iraq a year from now?" asked Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader.

And with that, the Pentagon chief began to tap dance. His reply, according to a Republican Senator in the room, was a classic Rumsfeldian fugue—complete with interesting hand gestures—mentioning reductions and foreign troops and steady progress. Or, as the G.O.P. Senator described it later, "it was a five-minute, total nonanswer, just unbelievably obtuse." Another Republican Senator put it this way to TIME: "Rumsfeld believes in his own magic."

It is increasingly fair to ask: Does anyone else? For nearly three years as Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld has employed everything from smiling charm to podium-pounding bluntness in his battles with Congress, the Pentagon bureaucracy and his colleagues in the Bush Administration over who controls foreign policy.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

16. If that's a sign of progress...

Ain't it about time we redefined the meaning of the word "failure?"

[IggleDoer]

17. Let me get this straight

If they attack us, it's a sign of progress. So, if it's peaceful and there are no attacks, we are failing.

War is peace and peace is war. It's a Bizarro world!

[dbt]

18. If these attacks are signs of progress, WHY are we trying to stop them??

Why are we spending time and money to find "additional ways of thwarting the anti-American rebellion there before it becomes more widespread?"

If Glorious Leader says the attacks mean that we're achieving our Sacred Goals in Iraq, shouldn't we be doing all within our power to make them INCREASE? Wouldn't that put us closer to achieving said goals?

Wouldn't that prove to the Loyal Sheep that bu$h knows exactly what he's doing and that the situation is well in hand?

:freak:
dbt
(Somewhere in 1984)

[no_hypocrisy]

19. This is nothing less than "Alice in Wonderland"/Mad Hatter logic.

n/t

[JM]

20. Someone PLEASE take the sock from his flightsuit

and stuff it in his mouth...

Later,
JM

[progressiverealist]

21. and meanwhile, my beloved Wisconsin Badgers getting beaten

by Northwestern is a sign that they're headed for a national championship.

[diamond14]

22. "Everyone knows you need more troops over there." = DRAFT

-snip-

Expressing a sentiment held by many, Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former head of U.S. Central Command, said, "Everyone knows you need more troops over there."